Bruce Fenton, 788,000 Year Old Science |562|

Bruce Fenton is an author and researcher of our ancient past.


Listen Now:



[one_third]Subscribe to Skeptiko with iTunes[/one_third] [one_third]email-subscribe[/one_third] [one_third_last]Subscribe to Skeptiko with YouTube[/one_third_last]  skeptiko-Join-the-Discussion-3

Click here for forum Discussion

Click here for Bruce Fenton’s Website

[00:00:00] Alex Tsakiris:

on this episode of skeptiko. A show about what’s going on in space. Now.


[00:00:08] Clip: How big, it’s what we call a global killer. Nothing would survive, not even bacteria and a scene straight out of the movie. Armageddon, real life. NASA scientists are going to Ram a spacecraft. Into one massive astrol ===

And 788,000 years ago.

[00:00:28] Bruce Fenton: And again, because this very reason that they, they, they understood disappeared to be already glass and to have come from space. So a lot of the NASA guys were arguing. This had to be Luna material. That theory collapsed when we retrieved Luna materials and realized it did not mesh but their argument was very sound. One of the guys actually sort of said, well, look, what about if it came from into planetary space or somewhere further out, they said, well, that’s product. No only tell that seriously, because. What’s the chances that it ends up in a geocentric orbit.



that first clip was from the today show. And the second one was from today’s guests, Bruce Fenton. Who you’ve heard on this show before, and I can pretty much guarantee you, you will hear from him again. He’s doing, I think just about the most important scientific research into E T UFO, the phenomenon, if you will then, well,

Really just about anyone else I can think of.

And I think the reason for that comes through in this interview. Stick around. It’s a good one

[00:01:35] Alex Tsakiris: ==

Welcome to skeptical, where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers and theirs.

Today. We welcome back Bruce Fenton to skeptical. Bruce is the author of several books. I pulled up. One of them you can find on Amazon exogenesis hybrid humans, a scientific history of extra terres what’s the rest of that genetic manipulation. Uh, there’s a couple other books you’re gonna wanna check out.

I won’t bother reading all those into the show, but into Africa hybrid humans. And then Bruce and I a couple years ago, because I met Bruce through skeptical and I was so blown away at the quality and importance of this work that I took it upon myself to do a little movie we did. And here it is on prime VI video.

You can watch it 780,000 years, our alien origin story. So go check that out if you want. Bruce gets a couple little pennies if you do, but his work, I just have to give this little bit of introduction, Bruce. And you’ve been on the show a couple times. People can find you a lot of different places, but like, where I wanna go with this is really.

Help people understand why I think you’re one of the top UFO researchers in the world and why I think that is like makes you one of the top scientists in the world. And I think that’s really hard for people to swallow. It sounds like hype. It sounds like, gosh, I’ve never heard of this guy or this guy’s just, you know, he’s so minor, you know, how can you say that?

Well, let me explain my logic, cuz I think it will play into the show in a, in a couple of important ways. So Let’s say you were gonna take a big picture view of the UFO issue. Biggest possible picture you could take, you’d say, okay, do UFOs exist? Where do they come from?

What do they want? Right. So these three would probably be the biggest, biggest questions you could ask. And I would suggest that unless you’re willing to really take a stab at answering those questions in a scientific. Then you can’t answer all the other questions that seem to dominate this discussion.

Disclosure, Lou Eli Elizondo

AIFF abductions,

good, et bad T graze versus lizards, all that stuff you can’t answer, unless you answer those , big picture questions. Now what I’m leading up to is Bruce, more than anyone I’ve come in contact with has directly tried to apply science to those big picture questions.

And he does it just brilliantly in this book, but he also does it in his other presentations that he’s given and in all his papers and stuff like that. So that’s what makes this so important is that here’s a guy who’s scientifically taken a stab at research that directly gets at, even if it doesn’t answer all those questions completely, it moves us towards an answer to those questions that can then let us answer those other questions.

So what do you think of that, Bruce? I know that’s kind of hard to ask you to comment on that, but I think that is in your core. When I hear you talk is that you really are searching for. Scientific evidence that drills into these big picture questions that we so often just gloss over and assume that they’re, that, that, that we either know ’em, or they’re impossible to answer or any of the rest of that.

Do you have any comment on

[00:05:28] Bruce Fenton: that? Yeah, sure. I mean, obviously, you know, some quite accolades if you’ve thrown there. So, I mean, um, cuz gives me, , some pause to thought to, to how I would look. I, I see myself certainly as trying to apply the scientific method to extraordinary and anomalous areas of thought, you know, and those, those little mysteries on the edges of, you know, of consensus, uh, understandings of science and consensus culture, if you like, um, the anomalies, you know, what appealed to me, you know, those scientific anomalies.

So I would say I’ve been on a journey from probably being quite credulous. Like, you know, a lot people go into those kind of areas, you know, accepting a lot of, um, of conjecture and a lot of strange hypotheses that didn’t have much substance to a point where I realized. To really make an impact. You, you have to be able to explain all of the evidence, you know, all the different constituent parts of a topic.

You have to be able to understand them in a framework broader into where topics linked with each other. You have to understand these vast web behind something like say human origins or, uh, lost parts of history that you can’t just say, look at the pyramid on its own and say, you know, wow, look at that mystery.

You have to understand say prehistoric cultures, the rise of culture, rise of civilizations, uh, how people could have flowed outta the, you know, original areas where modern humans arose. You know, you start around this, this vast, uh, matrix or context for all of these kind of mysteries. And that’s where I’ve been taken to is, is understanding all of these data points and bringing ’em together.

And of course that really is part of the scientific process is to take all of the evidence and find the hypothesis that fits with all of it and explains the outstanding anomalies. Right. And that that’s where I’m at. So I would say, yes, I’m applying science, although I’m not an, uh, credentialed scientist, you know, I have an it diploma.

I don’t have, uh, a, you know, a PhD in any of the hard sciences. I’m applying that scientific method now to areas that traditionally have been left as, uh, areas of pure speculation mostly, or have been in the focus of what I’d say is fairly lack. Lessed debunking by scientists who haven’t taken the time to really explore all of the evidence, but focus more on the problematic, um, speculative theories that an offer, which are often are quite easily dismissed quite honestly.

Um, and so I, I, I think I have sent into a, kind of a, a strange niche there where there’s very few people that are actually applying the scientific method to seeing whether the strange hypotheses on offer actually make sense rather than just dismissing them or ignoring these topics in, in entirety. So in the field of anomalist science, yes, I probably am one of the, the, the main or.

People in that, because to be fair, there’s not many of us,

[00:08:34] Alex Tsakiris: Bruce, let me interject because here’s what I see on your path that I find interesting. And I think anyone who appreciates the application of the scientific method by people like yourself is that I see you looking at all these anomalies, like you’re talking about with these previous books and in your journey with your wife, Danny, who is co-author of these books and is brilliant in her own writing.

We spoke to Danny when we did the film, but. Here’s what I really like. I get excited about in this book. Exogenesis hybrid humans, you found a case and then you sunk your teeth into it because you found it as a vehicle for tying all these things together. So it’s not like you went looking, but I think so few people understand this.

I was just listening to an interview you gave and the guy who is this pretty prominent, the UFO community. He just couldn’t wrap his head around it. Cuz he was so skeptical, not skeptical, but just like no, you know that doesn’t add up that doesn’t prove it this way. And instead what I saw is like, no, what Bruce has done is exactly what somebody needs to do.

Kind of go through all these little pieces on the ground until you find one piece that really unlocks it and then dig into that piece and keep digging into it. And then look at the tech tights and look at the flow and look at the Silicon and look at how they fall and then trash that trace that back to the time period.

So mm-hmm, let me see if, if that resonates with you in terms of this case, that really becomes the focus of so much of your work and how important do you think that case is? How different is it? And then of course we have to give people a thumbnail sketch and go back and tell ’em what that, what that case is and how you went about proving it in a scientific way.

And I know that’s a four hour thing, but we’ll just try and we’ll try and shut. Close it down as quick as you can. So we can then talk about the new developments that you’re bringing us just lately.

[00:10:35] Bruce Fenton: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it’s um, for me, there is no doubt that the, the, the case dealt with in exogenesis hybrid humans, you know, this, uh, events of 788,000 years ago, approximately that these events are.

Without parallel, the most important, um, sets of events that I’ve personally looked into, you know, so you go Beckley Tepi and pyramids, and, you know, the movements of early humans, I dealt with my, in my obviously previous book, which I, you know, is really important rewriting, uh, recent out of Africa and people would say, well, that’s massive.

You know, if you’ve really done that, that’s huge. And I’d say, well, yeah, that’s quite important, but it’s nothing on this. So that gives perhaps some kind of scale as to how big I think it is. So I think most people in certain, the sciences would say, well, rewriting recent Arab Africa, you know, that’s paradigm changing.

That’s massive. I now realize that compared to what I’m doing at the moment that’s inconsequential, you know, it, yes, it’s interesting. Uh, but it doesn’t really change, uh, who we are as a species or really where we’ve come from. You know, it’s, uh, it’s an interesting change to the story, but I, I think what I’m dealing with now is something that, you know, it really would change the way we view ourselves and view change the way we view the entire arc of human history from the very beginning of, you know, the, the species that gave rise to homo SAP onwards.

Um, it says, I can’t really think of a human-centric story that would be bigger than that. You know, you can have a cosmic story that’s bigger, you know, maybe the rise of the universe or is, is there God, and, you know, there’s the massive cosmic questions, right. But if we’re talking about human beings, Then this story for me is the biggest one imaginable.

It’s the, it’s the entire arc of what made us, us, uh, what was, what was the environment like for us, what was happening at the beginning of our story that makes, uh, all of this begin, you know, and of course that has ripple effects all the way down to now, especially related to a lot of the extraordinary phenomena, other topics, UFOs, aliens experiences, people are claiming they’re having with alien type intelligence, all of that stuff links back into this story.

[00:12:49] Alex Tsakiris: The other thing I would interject, because it even goes further than that. If we could even say that and that doesn’t sound mm-hmm , but it also kind of sets the clock a little bit, both in terms of which is super important to say, okay, now the scale we have to start looking at things 788,000 years ago, boom.

That instantly puts a different perspective on, you know, what we’re worried about today and disclosure in this you’re like, wait a minute, we have to look at it on a completely different time scale. But the other thing that resetting the clock does in a very kind of, uh, amazing way, but also kind of a scary way is it resets where we are in that timeline?

So we are at the verge of really using silicone to develop not only computers, but maybe a craft. You know, we’re on the edge of that. We’re on the edge of genetic transhumanism, you know, this and that. So even if we look at our history that we’ve recorded, you know, thousand years, 2000 years, 5,000 years, whatever you think we have recorded in history.

Now, your work. Puts that into a frame of reference that is exciting and also uncomfortable because it says you are at the cusp of something that, do you get what I’m saying? What do you think

[00:14:05] Bruce Fenton: about that? Yeah. Yeah. Um, I, I think that the phrase would come to mind is, you know, history never repeats, but it certainly rhymes because I, I think that we are in a, kind of a cyclical, um, temporal flow, but maybe not quite a circle, but a kind of a spiral so that we are seeing a repeating flavor of events.

So we are not necessarily going right back to the beginning of the human story, but we are seeing things that we’re occurring at the beginning of the story occurring. Now, as we reach a kind of a transition point for humans, again, you know, so we’re dealing with a, a very ancient human transition point, and now we can see elements of it are mirror.

Today as we enter another kind of transition point for human beings. And, you know, as you say, what some of these, the indications of the same kind of technologies that I’m looking at in my work, we’re seeing now coming into view again, um, from human hands, you know, and again, obviously deal with, you know, S based technologies, you know, AI, um, you know, modifying beings using technologies, uh, all of these things that, you know, I tackle there, we can see these are becoming really poignant central issues today.

You know, of course we’ve got warnings that AI probably represents the biggest existential threat to humans for start, which, you know, can feel like Elon Musk, who are you obviously involved in that? So, you know, that, you know, we’ve almost missed the boat on trying to deal with that. Cause it’s got to a point where the, you know, the Pandora’s box is open.

Um, nearly all of the greatest minds that are coming out of university today are going into these fields into AI and into the technology fields. Right? So there’s an exponential increase in how fast. That topic is going to, you know, move forward now. Cause it’s no longer a case of it’s something people saw as a background, uh, field.

Now it’s a, a, a really the front of technology and a front of is this idea of, you know, AI doing everything right?

[00:16:00] Alex Tsakiris: The exact same thing is true when you get into genetics. And even when you, particularly, when you look at Hey, take genetics, take globalism one world government.

Really. So on a political level, you know, if you start thinking along the thinking that exogenesis brings us, then you start asking questions like, well, how much sense does it make to have 146 governments on a planet versus one go? So that’s it. And then, you know, you look at the bio weapon, gene therapy thing and you go, whoa.

You know, now different ways to affect DNA. You know? So we take, like, it’s not just about, , you know, the genetic modification and cloning and stuff like that. It’s about this whole burst of technological innovation surrounding genetics. And, and again, I’m not putting any value judgment on that for purposes of this conversation, what I’m doing is really taking your work and saying, how does your work give us a different perspective, demand?

How does it demand that we take a different perspective on all of that?

[00:17:12] Bruce Fenton: Well, there’s a couple of ways, but one, one thing I’d highlight there is, you know, if we look at the way that technologies. , how we sort of mixing with each other flow into each other and depend on each other. I mean, we can see now that the military machine, you know, is very caught up with the AI developments as well.

There’s always been talk for years now, AI generals. I mean, and people don’t understand what’s happening here, but we’re, we’re moving towards AI that will be in control of drone weapons, hypersonic crafts. And at the same time, who do people think the there’s gonna be running the genetic engineering? Do they really think that’s humans?

No. So we’re gonna have AI doctors, AI scientists, AI, genetic engineering, right? So AI that’s in charge of re-engineering humans controlling our warfare, right. And essentially running all of our resources under this one world government. So you, you’re almost kind of engineering this godlike AI, right? So there’s this spiritual dimension to it that it’s, you know, that we are the jus machiner idea, you know, that, that it’s God from the machine.

Right. And that it’s going to be doing all of this stuff. And as you, you arc back to 788,000 years ago, and obviously the, the work I’ve been doing, we have this kind of story of what seems to be, you know, an AI. That is connected to the beginnings of humans. The engineer engineer engineering of humans is linked into a story of that and warfare, um, you know, so we, we have that kind of repeating theme.

So though it’s not saying so exactly the same thing happening, cause we’re dealing with what seems to be an external AI rather than a, a human engineered AI. But again, it’s this, there’s a resonance here, this idea of, of, uh, super intelligences that are able to come in and, you know, calculate what they think is best for humans, modify us change the planet, uh, control resources here and, you know, conduct warfare potentially.

And so I, I think we are seeing an int you know, an interlinking between the beginning and what could be the end, at least an end of this chapter of humanity involving these super intelligences and the inter interlinking between technologies between these AI genetic engineering, planetary control warfare.

So that that’s where I see it being very important. So if we could get this warning from the past and an understanding that just the direction that this is going in, I think it can make us maybe, maybe rethink and take a moment of pause before we, you know, steam ahead.

[00:19:34] Alex Tsakiris: Well, Paul, we’ll see about that, cuz there’s a couple of different ways to interpret the story, but I guess in typical skeptical fashion, we’ve jumped right to the inside baseball stuff, which is great.

Love it. Wouldn’t do it any other way, but maybe you better pull back and give people the five minute thumbnail sketch of. , what happened, uh, how this, how this research came to be?

[00:19:57] Bruce Fenton: Yeah, I mean, it’s quite, you know, it’s extraordinary story. So the first part of this is, you know, I stumbled on a set of claims.

So people aren’t familiar with this, you know, there was, um, a set of claims made back in the, uh, early 1990s of an interaction between, uh, an Aboriginal elder with Jerry Bo stop and a well English origin, uh, lady in Australia called Barry Barrow who had, uh, an interaction with what’s considered to be a sacred Aboriginal artifact called Acheringa.

Now this is, you know, extraordinary mind burning story for most people would discount immediately. So, which I’ll understand, but will come to why they shouldn’t. Uh, and this artifact seemingly was able to transfer information a kind of a history of humanity. These would be traditionally, these are UN artifact.

They’re kept, there’s a who, of who sacred, sacred, you know, away from the regular people in the indigenous tribes that have law around touring. And there’s a few dotted around ULA area. Um, there’s several different, you know, nations that have a history relating to these things. And they say that they were left here in the, the beginning time in what we’d think of as the dream time, or they call the chia time or the Oura time.

Sorry. And so these touring link to. Altering the time and out altering the beings who were involved in the creation of animals, humans, parts of the landscape. So are kind of, you know, terraforms genetic engineers that are non-human intelligence that are, were here long ago and left these artifacts. Now they say that these artifacts are in some way alive, that they are actually, these outing beings transformed into these permanent bodies.

So small portable kind OFS artifacts.

[00:21:41] Alex Tsakiris: Before you go there, cuz it’s, it’s great. But uh, to just kind of set this up because you said this before, but the story is so dense and so important.

Yeah. You were predisposed to become super interested in this and then predisposed to unpeel the onion in the layers that you did because you had this incredible background where you had been exploring these anomalies all over the world and you had other kind of non-ordinary experiences that kind of pushed you along that, and we don’t have time to go into all those, but just briefly, you know, you are predisposed to when you hear this and this is also published in a book later on to pursue it.

So just cover that real briefly cuz it’s important, right? Yeah, yeah, no

[00:22:28] Bruce Fenton: that’s right. Because I mean a lot of people would simply disregard that immediately. Right. Um, so unless you have some reason to think that such a series of events could be possible, you probably would go no further than that. Right.

It’d just be this strange story that you heard and maybe poo it, but because I’ve had yeah. Years and years of, uh, first of all, an interest in ancient mysteries, The anomalies of science, so super normal experiences, uh, you know, the whole gamut of strange phenomena, you know, first of all, I’m very interested in any account that has elements like that.

But secondly, I’ve had a lot of my own very strange experiences, including, you know, psychic phenomena, um, you, an anomalous kinds of events that makes me predisposed to listen to people. And I don’t necessarily believe word for word ever think someone tells me, you know, if they tell me a strange experience, but I, I look at it as I’m, I believe that they believe something extraordinary happened to them.

You know, if they have a compelling way of delivering it, you know, and the story sounds like it could be real. I, I give people the benefit of the doubt, but of course, to actually take it on very seriously. I want some evidence, right. So, you know, then to move from, I believe you believe, and that’s your interpretation of the event to actually, I think this is quite accurate, you know, there’s another transition that has to occur, but certainly for me to even take it seriously, you know, I think it’s been important to have gone through that journey.

You know, when my partner, obviously she’s a shamanic healer, you know, I know she’s had all kinds of extraordinary events, you know, cause you know, I live with her, she’s making up stories, think about her experiences. She has, you know, altered the stakes astral experiences. Um, she worked as a professional psychic, you know, on the phone.

So, so people say, you know, cold reading, you can’t cold read people on telephones and you know, for emails and stuff with accurate, you know, information. Um, and. That for me. So, and also I have my own experiences with, um, mediumship. I trained for a short period as a spiritual medium, uh, and I’ve had sort psychical experiences.

So what sounds like, kind of telepathic type experience in this, you know, a transferring of information from some kind of intelligence to the mind of this individual for me is believable. Because I’ve had experiences where there’s been a transfer of information to my mind from either other people or from other intelligences.

So I can understand these things happen, you know, no matter how strange they

[00:24:51] Alex Tsakiris: sound. Awesome. So now I wanna pick back up on the story, because again, Bruce, this is an awesome conversation. I love these kind of conversations. I don’t know if people can follow it. I just have to do it the way that seems to organically spring to mind.

There’s such an interesting crossover point here, because you’re talking about, uh, one you’re talking about shamonic experiences that the Aboriginal native people in Australia are having. And then, but you’re also then, and you’re talking about your own experiences of communication in this extended consciousness realm that doesn’t involve technology, but then what you’re introducing us to as well is the possibility that in this case, this communication, this non-ordinary communication, we have to be open to the possibility that it is technology driven.

Mm-hmm so there’s an real interesting crossover point, but jump over to that other side and tell us why you are willing to speculate that this particular chia communication had a technology. Basis to it.

[00:26:00] Bruce Fenton: Sure. You know, they, the thing that really stood out to me is that there is, um, you know, in, in the field of sort of space sciences, you know, there’s been a lot of, um, speculative thinking on what, what would we look for from an alien intelligence?

You know, what might they be doing? You know, that we could, um, kind of find. Some compelling evidence of them. And one of the, one of the suggestions is that, you know, out there intelligence is maybe exploring the cosmos, using their technologies, you know, the same way that we are just beginning to, you know, we wanna send out solar sales and we’re sending out micro probes, the size of mobile phones as a new plan to explore planets and oceans.

Right? So we can imagine that there’s probably civilizations out there that have done similar things. And, and if they’ve had enough time that they could send quite advanced robots and AI probes and all the rest out into space, running their own kind of search for extra traditional intelligence, utilizing these autonomous robots, you know, autonomous AI.

Now this is of course speculative, but it makes a lot of sense. So we have a class of objects, they call sort Bracewell probes for the scientists. I think is Ronald Bracewell. Uh, there’s also the, uh, V Newman probes, which familiar on Newman a lot. Sayon Newman was linked into the UFO. Program and into very deep black projects as well, connected to the idea of there being some kind of intelligence interacting us, which is quite compell interesting in itself.

But these two guys, both theorized that there may be these kind of autonomous AI probes that could go out, explore the universe would be essentially aortal, maybe even have this, what we call them. Self-repair that’s volume and self-repair so they can fix themselves. If they’re damaged, uh, mind planet services build more copies of themselves, all sorts of ideas around this kind of, um, brace wall probes idea.

Now there’s also a particular class of brace wall probe. That’s called a Sentinel probe. And so these would be sent out to sit either, you know, on a surface of a planet or perhaps in orbit and could record any information, you know, record anything that’s happening in the biosphere. So if they detect an interesting planet with a biosphere, say, let’s say for example, like earth earth has had a visible detectable oxygen signature for 2 billion years.

So, if anyone’s out there is looking for biosphere, that oxygen signature would be really interesting. So we can imagine many civilizations sending probes towards earth over 2 billion years. That’s plenty of time. So any of the skeptics say, oh, it’s a long way. 2 billion years is a long time, right? So there’s been plenty of time for these probes to arrive here, a brace or Sentinel probe then could just sit and wait.

And if a, you know, a civilization, if you know, life evolves and a civilization forms that these could be in theory, you know, instructed to eventually make contact with a civilization and act as the intermi of the original alien civilization. That sounds kind of sci-fi, but it’s also a lot, you know, logic to analog sense.

And we can kind of see ourselves humans heading in the direction of doing these kinds of projects ourselves, right. When we’re not far off doing this. So. When you then hear about an artifact sort OFS, small artifact that’s mean is linked to the idea at the beginnings of time is very ancient. You’re sitting there, you know, somewhere in Australia and it activates and makes contact with people and starts telling them.

In fact, actually one of theories is that these things might have a whole history of humanity and when they make contact, share this with us. And so when you hear a story where that’s exactly what happens, that’s kind of like the alarm bells should start ringing

[00:29:32] Alex Tsakiris: also let me go back and make sure we re and we add to the fact of the mythology. Air quotes on that one, surrounded with this object. Yeah, it is sacred of sacred. Uh, the other thing you said, super interesting that I think relates to this story maybe in a way that we’ll get to is that don’t tell everybody about this cuz they won’t get it.

, does that again, when you said rhyme, you know, does that rhyme with our current age? When we have people who think the world is flat? You know, we have people that drive around in their car by themselves with a mask on there’s people, there’s a Gulf that’s getting wider and wider between people who are able to kind of process this kind of advanced knowledge and sort it out.

And those who just, who just can’t. And so I’d wonder from one from a, you could kind of take the whole thing as mythology, but also from a practical standpoint, wouldn’t that be the way that you would handle advanced information? You’d say, look, you know, just kinda be careful who you share this with kind of thing.

And that’s the story that comes along with this object.

[00:30:51] Bruce Fenton: Yeah, I mean, and we, in a time about, you know, Carl Sagan kind of warned of that, you know, with a, a population that has been essentially dumbed down and is no longer not everyone, but the, the direction of travel is the dumbing down of the population.

And so they have scientific literacy and so that they no longer stand the technologies that are being brought out. And that, that suits. The political elite, you know, that suits the governing elite. That cuz that allows for anyone who does understand these things to come along and take control and to manipulate and take advantage.

So we are in a situation where a very small number people would really understand, uh, what the capabilities of our technologies are and this direction of travel and that, you know, how this sort scenario would make sense. So a lot of people just sounds like, oh, you know, absolutely bonkers, but there would be people sitting in, you know, black projects and in top universities who absolutely are looking for these things, you know, and thinking that’s what we should be seeing.

[00:31:48] Alex Tsakiris: Let me just interject one more point, because I think this is also where this important research that you’re doing takes us, because if we are going to use this as a way to step back and reexamine everything, I think I immediately go to the evil black budget government kind of thing.

And I say, okay, but really isn’t that a natural consequence of. What you would have to do, right? You, you have this Gulf, like the, the, like you’re saying the dumbing down, forget about dumbing down. I don’t know that there really is that, that evidence that we’ve been significantly dumbed down, particularly if you look at a longer lens of history, you know, we’re certainly much more advanced than people a hundred years ago, two a hundred years ago.

So maybe this is, again, the timeline thing. Maybe this is the natural progression and maybe the natural progression is that gap just gets lo uh, larger and larger. And in order to effectively protects civilization, you naturally go to black budget, secret projects and, uh, hidden demo, you know, forget democracy, just kind of rule by the elites kind of thing.

I’m not saying I want that. I’m not saying I voted in favor of that. I’m saying, doesn’t this research cause us to maybe say, wow, how would, how did they do it? How would we do it differently kind of thing. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[00:33:16] Bruce Fenton: Yeah. I mean, it’s, you know, it is an issue, the ther how could we have a better model?

And, you know, is, is that the best model for humanity? Because, you know, I do recognize, and again, from researching widely, you know, in a multidisciplinary kind of fashion that not all human brains are the same. Now I’m not gonna sort there’s no, you can’t say there’s any racial group or something that’s different, but.

We know now that a, across the board, you have neurodiversity, right? You know, I’m a person with dyslexia and Asperger traits. So I’m not the same as someone who doesn’t have dyslexia, that there are differences, you know, intellectual differe, you know, differences because of structures in the brain. There are people who are more capable of big picture thinking and of understanding the interlinking of subjects.

Now, if some of those people decided that perhaps they felt they knew best. and maybe in some ways they did know better than a lot of people. You could imagine how they might work together to try and run the world in a certain way, where they genuinely feel that they were uniquely qualified and capable to do it because they can see, there are people who are incapable of that level of big picture thinking.

Now it doesn’t mean they’ve got it right. But the underlying idea is actually kind of logical and makes sense. I can definitely see how it happens. I can understand how networks of people form, you know, and we have these other secret societies where they carry information that they feel most people won’t make use of and won’t even understand, but that at some point will be invaluable to their networks.

And so it’s transitioned through to now, and as things change in our society, they can refer to that and say, well, that that’s useful. Now we have the technology to make use of that. And that could help form the world in a certain way that we think is for the best for the species right now, the best for the species doesn’t mean very nice things for the individuals.

And that that’s the problem you end up in a situ where. You know, it’s a bit like the spot when you say, you know, for the greater good, you know, that sometimes what it, the, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Right. And that’s really problematic morally. That’s really problematic because what about the few aren’t they equally important as the many?

And so, you know, you, you end up with this thing of that, is it ever okay to sort of say, well, you know, some people are gonna have to be thrown to the fire to make this perfect world. And I think that’s the situation we’re in. It is complex. I know people don’t like to think about that, that these people may generally think they’re doing the best and because they feel they’re uniquely qualified.

[00:35:52] Alex Tsakiris: I, I just, uh, and that, that’s also true from a scientific perspective and a lot of people, I think, who are Uber logical, rational, and super smart can get to the same place. Just interviewed Dr. Dean Raden love Dr. Dean Raden. So respect his work. He’s been on this show for 15 years and he comes on and he gives the transhumanism speech.

He’s the guy who, more than anyone else has kind of exposed the expose. The consciousness is an illusion, uh, conspiracy, materialist science, you know, he, his experiments, six Sigma results replicated around the world. Completely dispel that. But where does he come to at the end? He goes, Hey, uh, I, I, you know, genetic genetic modification in order to get us towards a hive mind like bees, maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

Mm-hmm . And I played that and I was like, Dean, Dean, what are you saying? How, you know, but. So the point is whether you agree with Dean or whether you don’t agree with Dean. And I don’t agree with Dean for a lot of other reasons that, uh, what, what we’re to make of this from a spiritual level, I think has to come into play.

But the point is super smart guy, super plugged in guy, he’s gotten mu millions and probably hundreds of millions of dollars behind him for this latest startup that he’s doing that will actually operationalize. Genetic engineering through the jab through a different jab, but a jab that will make you more psychic that will give you a hive mind.

This is not, this is not sci-fi folks. Go listen to the interview and go look at the fact that the guy is at boy in move from Northern California, to Dubai, to Boise, Idaho, to join forces with another guy who’s been doing this research and they have a, a biogenetic startup. I mean, this is what we’re talking about here, Bruce, how this stuff intersects.

So with that, let’s leap back into the story. Be hopefully people have a context of you here. Now this you’re hearing this, you’re hearing the TRIA you’re hearing. Uh, you know, so how do you go about here? Here’s the, here’s the cool thing about your story? How do you go about switching hats, putting on your science hat and say, wait a minute, here’s something I can sink my teeth into as a scientist.

Mm-hmm mm-hmm

[00:38:21] Bruce Fenton: yeah, I mean, it was, um, quite a transition really, because, you know, you go from. Having some level of information that suggests something may really have happened. Now that’s personally compelling, but if, if you are going to go out and then say to people, this extraordinary thing really happened.

I mean, that takes a, a whole different level of supporting evidence and knowledge of a topic area, because of course you are gonna, at some point have to stand and defend your claims against someone who is an expert in some of the topics that you’re dealing with, you know, in a level where, you know, they’ve maybe spent 20 years looking at say whether it’s genetics, whether it’s tech ti, somebody who spent their career on that.

Now at some point, they’re gonna say, hang on a minute, what’s the one earth is he saying? So unless you have a very, very deep knowledge, you realize that you are only going to kind of bring on board the most open-minded people who really already kind of thought the same thing as you. Right. They, they already convinced like, yeah, but we totally agree.

I always knew it was that. Well, have you really convinced someone then if they always knew it was that, or they just think he’s, you know, he’s come on board with me now. So, so I really had to realize that that that’s not good enough to have those people come on board because they, you know, they don’t need any evidence from you really.

So to get to those other people who would benefit from that understanding and who, who you feel, it would be important to have them look at it. You, you need to be able to drill down and find, okay, so where is the most solid evidence that supports my convictions or my, you know, my direction of thinking.

Uh, and that, that. Took really deep dive going into dozens and dozens of, of, you know, scientific studies on these topics ranging from the, particularly on the tactile topic. But yes, in genetic engineer, you know, genetic engineering, the genetics of human beings, um, you know, paleo genomics, uh, then course into, you know, look reading papers on AI, you know, the theories of these probes.


[00:40:17] Alex Tsakiris: keep pulling you in these other directions and don’t, don’t give you a chance to kind of give this thumbnail sketch that I know people, Hey, if, if you’re not familiar with this work, sorry, you gotta go read the book which you gotta do.

And then you gotta go watch the video that we did. And then this is like the next level kind of stuff. And I’m not gonna apologize for that, but thumbnail sketch, remind people the three, the three things you decided to focus on that because again, as a scientist, mm-hmm, even knowing what questions to ask is, is so important, so difficult to do.

So you said, okay, here are three things that I might should be able to find if the real, if I’m going to test my own theory in a way that you just said, I, I could really convince people, what are the three, give us at the highlight before we go into ’em dive into ’em.

[00:41:12] Bruce Fenton: Sure, absolutely. So amongst the claims from this account were.

This idea that there, first of all, there’d been an, an enormous craft, a silica AI craft, a conscious craft of like that it arrived here, you know, hundreds of thousands of years ago. And that had been destroyed in orbit, showering down Moton silica material across the planet. So that stood a house that’s big, that’s a big event, you know, there could be some traces of that.

So that was like number one, the, the second one was there was an account of there being a engineered multidirectional, asteroid bombardment. So kind of a, almost like a, uh, a planetary, um, uh, reengineering, the surface, the planet or something, you know, on that scale, you know, it’s multiple objects hitting the planet surface, but while that surely also, you know, is gonna leave some traces that we can find geological records.

And lastly, this idea that, you know, human beings had. An ancestor that had been genetically reengineered, you know, again, in the same period. So all of these things also happening tightly in time, not just in space on this planet,

[00:42:22] Alex Tsakiris: Important point to interject here.

Mm-hmm these three points and a bunch of other stuff is time stamped from the chia into a book that is published, that people can go back and look at the original publication data. I think it’s 2003. Explain, explain that. Cause I kind of skipped you pulled you off that story, but we have a timestamp of saying, okay, this is the information that came through from the baseball probe, through the head of Valerie burrow.

, right? 2003, right? Yeah. And it lays

[00:42:56] Bruce Fenton: it all out. Yeah, exactly. So people can go in, they can read it, you know, alga when the first ancestors were created, say, yes, it’s been out there since 2003. So it’s not just, you know, uh, something that’s been verbally shared and that, you know, be hard to confirm that this was actually.

Said long ago, you know, it’s out there and that’s important too. Cause of course people can say, well, you know, could be just fitting this story to recent discoveries. Right. And that somebody just, oh, come on. I can make a sort story about that and do some conferences or so, you know, which absolutely. I, I would understand those kind of accusations, but because we have it already out there, you know, published, we’re able to say, well, this account is describing things that a person, well, if they’re real, the person couldn’t know by conventional means, say that because for example, this multi-directional asteroid bombardment.

Yes. There, there is an event like that, but it wasn’t known until 2016. So that straight away is problematic for people that say, you know, oh, they’re just basing a story around known events. Well, that wasn’t a known event. Um, we also have, well, one interesting thing is, is that in the book, there’s no mention of, you know, Aite tech size that I focus on.

So again, it’s not fitting to somebody’s narrative, there’s a description of a graph there’s material. And what I found, which isn’t mentioned that, you know, is that the, yes, there is this debris that fits the description. So again, it’s not someone else’s made a story saying these tech types were from a craft.

You know, I have found that they mesh with the description and the timing. And then of course this genetic engineering part, which in some ways is the most difficult to confirm because you know, we are at a point where. Genetics and evolution are not fully understood. So someone could say, well, maybe there’s just some process.

We don’t understand. Okay. Which I accept, but there are anomalies which are indicative of engineering in the past at around that same time, because that’s when the ancestors of the falls, Dennis OS and nurse have significant changes going on in the genome that changed the brain massively changed our brain structure.

Right? So that’s having at the same time. So we have these three things all having at the same time that are indicated in this account.

[00:45:07] Alex Tsakiris: Okay. And here’s where it gets even more super interesting because there’s some new science. So you are truly a scientist. You’re constantly reading papers. You’re constantly taking in new information.

You’re testing, testing it against the theory. And one of the things you alerted me to is that, Hey, Alex, I have looked into the tech type thing and boom, there’s some new information that I wanna share. And it’s more up to date. Similarly, we’re gonna talk in a minute about the, uh, human acceleration regions and the genetics associated with that. Again, new information has come forward that has changed that timeline in the way that we understand it. It happens to totally fit in your theory. So we’re gonna talk about both of those, the, the basics of it, and then the new science of it.

Let’s start with the tech Heights.

[00:46:04] Bruce Fenton: Yeah, absolutely. So I’ve been working on a paper about the tech Heights for quite a while now. Um, what I realize is that to make an argument that, you know, something really extraordinary has happened, first of all, you have to, you know, what is the strongest. Area of evidence that we have out of these, these different topic areas.

And my realization was it was in this tech type machine and I, people that aren’t familiar with tech tights, tech tights are a kind of melt glass. Now they are, there’s a few kinds of milk glass you have, of course you have impact glasses, which you find around, you know, asteroid, craters, right. Which are.

Most people maybe are familiar with, we have of course, volcanic glasses, and then you have, you know, human made glasses. I mean, this kinda other kind like lightning glasses, like full rights stuff, but they’re quite different. Um, tech types are a particularly strange type of glass because although they are, they are generally held to be a type of asteroid impact glass.

They are far more alike to volcanic glasses and artificial glasses. And there’s a number of reasons. I’ll give you a, a very quick overview of why, and this is why this tech type topic remains a mystery and controversial. And with ongoing discussion around how tech types formed. And that’s 200 years, this has been going on just to be clear, 200 years, the tech type subject has been, uh, debated with different points of view on the, the story of how they form and how they’re distributed.

Now, the distribution is interest because they are found in STR field, enormous, um, dis enormous fields of debris stretching for, you know, hundreds or thousands of kilometers. In the case of the O Australian STR field, we are talking about a debris field that is around 12,000 kilometers, long going from China to Antarctica and out at the edges to kind of Madagascar and out into the ocean beyond P right.

It’s about another 10,000 kilometers across or something. So it’s about 20% of the Earth’s surface. He’s covered in these Australian tech types. So that’s, first of all, that’s enormous. So we’re talking about an event that is just, you know, massive in scale and these, these tech types have, um, two really important considerations.

First thing is that they are very homogenous. That is the, the chemicals in them are very well mixed throughout the entire body of the material across all of that distance. The second is they’re very well fined and people are familiar with glass making. I, and the finding process of glass is so removing the bubbles and to remove, you know, removing the chemicals you don’t want in there.

So you heat it to a, a certain temperature of a certain period of time with certain chemicals. So you mix it, you allow the bubbling and you end up with, you know, this high quality glasses, right? A similar process happens with volcanic glass because it’s heated in a cold era over a period of time. So again, homogenous, uh, you know, material,

[00:48:56] Alex Tsakiris: How does that differ from what we’d find from an a. Sure

[00:49:02] Bruce Fenton: asteroid glasses are typically very foamy. So in other words, they are full of bubbles. And the reason why is because when an asteroid impacts, and this is you’ll find the same at nuclear blast size.

If anyone’s familiar with nuclear blast glasses, they’re very similar to asteroid impact glasses for the same reason, very quick events, you know, high energy, high pressure events, but short lived. So you get raw material melted, but around the edges, first of all, you get a lot bubbles in it because it heats very quick.

Then it cools very fast. So the bubbles are trapped, right? And so once look up image, they’ll find images, they’ll find it. They’re very bubbly. The other thing is they contain part melt. So PEs of partially melted stone, right? Makes sense. At the edge of the glass stone, you get part melt, your inclusions of unmalted stone or sand.

You also get inclusions of organic materials are soils, right? So that’s a kind of a typical, also the glass is almost identical chemically to the CRA rock. Because it’s just the crater melted. Right? So it, it’s almost interesting. And you’ll find that blast around the crater and usually to a maximum of 400 kilometers from the crater.

Right. And that’s because when anything explodes, no matter how fast that material leaves. So if it’s about hyper velocity debris, they call distal ejector, right? So when this material’s thrown out of the crater, no matter how fast it’s going, it falls by around 400 kilometers. The reason for that is because the air ahead of it is being compressed.

So it’s dealing with friction, gravity, and obviously the air that’s compressing ahead of it. So if you imagine a bullet going through water, you know, it stopped pretty quick. This is a similar kind of scenario, no matter how fast it’s going, it’s meeting that opposition and it will be slowed and it will drop to not much further than 400 kilometers.

Some people are some scientists estimate, maybe a thousand.

[00:50:48] Alex Tsakiris: Mm-hmm . So compared to, uh, a huge giant small moon size spaceship that is, , orbiting the earth and is hit by, uh, some kind of high energy weapon that we can’t begin to understand.

How does what you find fit that completely ridiculous to a lot of people, but potential scenario, how does it fit?

[00:51:16] Bruce Fenton: Well, they did well, there’s, there’s two things. Two things I’d have to say there’s you can look at this.

The most conservative conclusion of my work I would suggest is that you are dealing with an inter stellar object, an unknown type of interstellar object. Okay. So some people may be. Only Willings go as far as that, but the indications are that this has to be a glassy object, right? A highly silica glassy object.

In other words, it appears it was already made of glass find homogenous glass before it exploded ,

[00:51:50] Alex Tsakiris: Because as you just described, if it’s made of a bunch of other stuff, then we’re gonna find all that other stuff in the tech tights.

[00:51:58] Bruce Fenton: Right. Also. Yeah. And if it’s homo, if the tech tights are homogenous and well fined and they didn’t have time for that to occur, cuz they’re not in a cold era, they’re not in a, you know, in a, an industrial plant being heated for hours.

Right? So this infers that there was not time for the, the, the body to be melted into a fine homogenous glass. So we should be seeing FFI foamy poorly mixed materials, but we’re not. So the inference is that the parent body, whatever it was, was already made of glass, like homogenous fined glass. Now that’s a problem because what kind of object is flying around out there?

That’s a big S glass body. There’s no comments or asteroids or anything like that. No, in our solar system. So you have to go to either an exotic interstellar object. That’s natural. But again, you have to explain. That’s formed, right? Or the more compelling argument is somebody has made this, this is, this is find homogenous materials.

Somebody has find it. Somebody has mixed it. Somebody has made it. And the problems were with the interest and object hypothesis. And again, this is, there was a couple guys back in the days at NASA kind of asked the question, could this parent body be at least an inter planetary object? And at the time the, the, the two positions where it was Luna, like Luna, volcanic glass that had been blown off of the moon.

And again, because this very reason that they, they, they understood disappeared to be already glass and to have come from space. So a lot of the NASA guys were arguing. This had to be Luna material. That theory collapsed when we retrieved Luna materials and realized it did not mesh with Luna rock. Right.

But their argument was very sound. One of the guys actually sort of said, well, look, what about if it came from into planetary space or somewhere further out, they said, well, that’s product. No only tell that seriously, because. What’s the chances of first of all, an object like that, but also that it ends up in a geocentric orbit.

Like, so see then you start getting to this really straight. Well, yeah, what’s the chances that we’re gonna capture. There’s an anomalous object and it’s gonna come in at just the right speed and angle to be caught in a geocentric orbit.

[00:54:08] Alex Tsakiris: how do you know it was orbiting?

So two questions, one, how do you know it was orbiting more science there that, you know, but the other thing that you alluded to, I wanna make sure we highlight it. You say these Nassau guys were debating it again. This speaks to what you were saying before


[00:54:25] Alex Tsakiris: Year old mystery. You, you tie, reference Nassau papers where these scientists are speculating about the very thing that you’re studying.

So this is not, this is like that part of it is mainstream. The mystery is mainstream. The data that you’re using is mainstream verifiable. So then I just want people to understand that orbit. Yeah. How do we know it’s orbiting Bruce, right?

[00:54:53] Bruce Fenton: We know it’s orbiting because, and there’s a couple reason if you imagine, uh, so you imagine, uh, say a comment, something comes in from space.

You say, let’s say, we thought that this was some sort of glassy comment came in from space. Now, if it comes directly in and breaks up in our atmosphere, you end up with a very small STR field under. Because it will just break up. It’ll just rain down directly beneath where it’s coming in or an impact, you know, as, as we’ve touched on, there’s a problem with the impact theory.

But if we say that it broke up coming into the atmosphere, you would end up with, I think they estimated something like, um, about 10 kilometer wide field or something like that, very small, but what we’ve got is a 10,000 kilometer wide field. So the only way that this works out is if we have a body that has been captured and is in orbit, and then it breaks apart fragments and a high temperature.

Cause it has to, you know, it has to basically sort of blown up. It’s melted to liquid. We know it was melted to liquid because the, the tech Heights begin before they enter atmosphere. These tech tights, the separate pieces are spherical, right. And have frozen very quickly. So fast that there there’s no crystallization has occurred and that would occur if there was an extended cooling.

So we know the only place where that’s really gonna happen is in a vacuum. So if you get this material is melted to super heated to glass at 2,700 Kel, roughly, and then it is, it becomes glass droplets. They form spheres because they’re in space. So that’s the NASA guys. They’re looking at the same route that has to be that they can see that the tech type buttons, which are particular type of these tech ties, then show secondary melting with aerodynamic shaping.

So he said, in other words, these have skipped along the edge of the atmosphere, very, uh, angles, almost horizontal to the plane of the planet. So very, very, um, gentle angles, skipping along, and then slowly entering, which allows time for heating of the front of the sphere. Obviously a lot of this fear evaporates, but the front edge means to run backwards and you get these aerodynamic shapes, they look like the front of bullets almost cuz you aerodynamic shapes.

Right? So they could understand that these had to, to be on these gentle angles. The only way that you’d end up with that is if the parent body is in orbit and what you have really is a debris field that is continuing on in the orbital parts of the parent body. But they’re now entering decaying orbital parts because it’s, it’s fragmented, it’s blown apart and some of them are now gently skipping along the edge atmosphere and entering that.

If you come in at any other angles, for example, if you think of a normal meteorite, when it comes in coming super. From space, first of all, and what you get is absolute extreme heating of the outer surface it evaporates. And that’s what we get these. And they just come down almost the same shapes as they were.

Those chunks, you know, misshape and chunks. There’s no aerodynamic shaping on meteorites. They come in so fast that all that happens is the outer layer evaporates. And that’s why these button tech types are unique. You don’t find them anywhere else. And that’s an important point in the 4.6 billion years of history.

These are the only known examples, right? So these were just from any old meteorites, you would see these all over the planet, right? At various sites, you don’t, you find them once. And so the NASA guys ran their experiments at the NASA Ames, um, research lab. They did wind tunnel research using artificial glass spheres to see how you could shape these.

And they found that they had to come in around about, uh, about 10 to 14, uh, kilometers per second, and, uh, angles also 90 degree angles, roughly. And that you would end up with this kind of shaping. So all that, all that research was turned by the NASA guys, right? They worked out, this had to be coming in from something in orbit when it broke up, none of the other masks works.

You know, I don’t have to do the masks. Thankfully they’ve done all that. Uh, and they found that that is the only scenario where you end up with these tech type button.

[00:58:43] Alex Tsakiris: What do we know? And do we know anything new about the timing? And again, this is like, you’ve already mentioned this point. It’s very basic.

But when I heard this interview, you did where the guy was totally hung up on this. You are looking to falsify the narrative. That’s what you’re really doing. And people mistakenly look that you’re looking to, uh, cherry pick and retrofit into it, and you’re doing the opposite.

You are trying to debunk your own theory. And then what comes out in terms of the date of the tech tights and what’s come out more recently.

[00:59:18] Bruce Fenton: Yeah. I mean, there’s basically says whether in, in the original account, you. Valerie Barrow. Actually, she suggests that she feels that the debris from this craft is moldy tech types.

So it’s still tech types, but, you know, if I was gonna be cherry picking and just trying to establish this narrative, I would be trying to argue that Moyes fit the story, right. And that trying to make the science fit that somehow these are the right age, you know, and the right characteristics. But I didn’t find that I found that they did not fit because the dating on them is millions of years old.

Uh, but with the, the OS Australian tech tights, the most recent dating done by the argon dating methods. So, you know, geological dating methods, uh, it they’ve come to what is considered now the most accurate dating of 788,000 years ago that this glass formed, you know, this melt occurred to this glass. So don’t tell you how the old, the parent object is, but it tells you when that melting occurred, that formed these individual tactiles.

So that’s, as it stands is the most accurate dating again, not done by me. You know, this is obviously done by people with labs that can do argon dating. So as you know, as ever, I rely on that. So that’s where we’re at with the dating. So that’s quite solid, you know, unless, you know, they somehow are contested, but even if you look at the older datings, they’re all somewhere in that range, you know, certainly in the last few years, the datings have been done around 780,000 years.

Of course, when we were talking before, I was saying 780,000, but the most accurate dating now is 788,000.

[01:00:50] Alex Tsakiris: Excellent. So anything else on the tech tights, uh, before we move to the genetic stuff, which is super fascinating.

[01:00:59] Bruce Fenton: Yeah. I mean the first one say is that, you know, in, in many ways the tech tight area of this can be quite easily just disconnected from the whole story for people that don’t like, you know, stories of people’s anecdotal accounts of having told something had happened.

You know, I, I, for the tech type part is a standalone topic, cuz at this point I don’t really care as such whether or not people believe in whether or not an elder, um, you know, and uh, another lady had an encounter with an object. They can sign the cell. But what I can say to them is tech tights are a existing scientific mystery.

That is so that’s a mystery for 200 odd years with the greatest mines PHIP NASA’s facilities up and used to explore them. It’s a genuine persisting mystery and that the evidence points to this being from an anomalous type of object exploding in orbit. Now I don’t really care whether people want to believe in talking probes or you know, or elders having power.

You know, if that is a problem for someone, I would say, well, just look at this tech type partner on its. And go from there because I’m so confident in the, kind of the, the level of evidence to at least, and again, most conservative conclusion, at least support the, the argument that it is an interstellar object with an anomalous composition breaking up in orbit that, you know, I’m quite for somebody if they stop and just say, well, that in itself is massive.

Even if they go no further than that, because that’s a entire new class of objects and the earliest known example of an inter Stella, you know, object arriving here and it’s doing strange things. So that’s why I’d suggest to anyone who’s, who doesn’t want to go there with any of the other elements. Just ponder that for a moment.

And by all means, check, check everything I’m saying, look at the papers. You know, if you have a question, ask me a .

[01:02:54] Alex Tsakiris: How about that? You know, the most, some of the most important research we could possibly do, and you can ask, ’em a question.

That’s just fantastic. Talk about, , human accelerated regions. Sure.

[01:03:06] Bruce Fenton: So, I mean, I, I personally think that, you know, the genomic set aspect of the story is absolutely fascinating and amazing. It’s something we should definitely be going into and a few years ago. And just before I, I preface a little bit, a few years ago, couple years ago now I’m not sure exactly when I managed to get a question put to sho stack.

I think most people, if you’re into these topics have probably heard of Seth Shasta, you know, he’s SETI, um, SETI foundation’s most, um, senior astronomer. And so, you know, he’s often the voice of SETI, you know, so I might a question put to him, BYM west, the famous kind of UFO de Baner on his radio show. And I thought that’s kind of amazing.

I’m just been part of my story at all. Um, so Mick asked him what he thought are basically, um, genomic setting, which is investigating genomics to see if there is any evidence of genetic manipulation. You know, any organism on this planet. And he kind just confirms what I already knew. He says, yes. You know, Dr.

Professor Paul Davies, esteemed kind of a astrophysicist mathematician has said for years, yes, we could do this. And maybe there’s, you know, I’m paraphrasing, but you know, saying that, yes, this is worthwhile doing and that it’s, it’s easy. It’s cheap. It could probably be done by a graduate student in a couple of weeks.

And then the bit that everyone should be thinking, well, why haven’t you done it? I mean, these people have had millions of dollars right. Spent on radio astronomy, and they’ve got nowhere with it. If nothing has come out of that in terms of finding Evans of, and he’s seeing there, and he has the full face to say, they could have got some grad student to do this project over a couple of weeks with almost, let’s be honest, no costs because how many people, how many grads that if, if you think if esteemed voices like poor Davies and the chef Shaak reached out to the community of science and said, we just need a couple of grad students to go over the literature and see if there’s any anomalies in genetics that might indicate possible tampering in the past.

They would’ve had thousands of people offering to do that.

[01:05:09] Alex Tsakiris: This relates back to the point we were talking about earlier. And it probably seemed incredibly tangential to people, but you’ve just made. Relevant, which is that , once you probe deeper, like you have, then everything looks different.

And in particular, what all that looks like is as a social engineering mind control, misinformation, disinformation distraction campaign. It’s not real for all. The reasons that you just said is because it’s very doable science mm-hmm it could be done. So the fact that it isn’t done can only mean one thing that it’s a, there’s a purpose behind it not being done.

Right. Yeah.

[01:05:50] Bruce Fenton: It makes you look that way at it because it’s so, you know, to anyone listening to that, it’s so glaring for someone like that, to say that, and then it to have not been done saying, yeah, it’s reasonable. Yes. We’ve talked about it, but nobody’s done it. I mean, that should make everyone question what the hell is going on in this search trust intelligence, then, you know, if there’s simple projects being ignored.

[01:06:11] Alex Tsakiris: Let me make sure we frame this up correctly. We’re talking about kind of this third element, this third, uh, leg of evidence that could support the chia kind of thing. So one of the things is that there’s this big bombardment.

We really didn’t talk about number two, you mentioned it in passing that you couldn’t have known about the, the bombardment asteroids in the war, which we’ll talk about maybe last, cause I think that’s super important too, in terms of culture, in terms of good et bad, et save the planet. And now what does this story tell us no, that’s that, that quickly goes away when we have.

Uh, petty differences between thiefs, which doesn’t that again, resonate with. Talk about rhyming with history. How many times have we seen that? It’s like, you might destroy the pet planet. I don’t give a shit. I want him out of there. I want my, I want me to dominate, right? Mm-hmm and now that’s ringing true 780,000 years ago.

So I’m gonna put that aside for a minute because we opened up the genetics thing. What is the information from the chia that were the basic story? The narrative that we’re going to try and find if there’s any basis for in this, in this very narrow time window now. Cause we’re at 788,000 years. It has to be in 788,000 years.

What is the it that has to be in 788,000 years?

[01:07:37] Bruce Fenton: Right. So what they describe is that there are some crew on this AI craft. That’s what they’re saying now. I can’t suspect you cause you won’t find that. I don’t think we’re gonna find bones or, you know, some astronauts outfit it’s too long ago, but there is the claim that there are some survivors that they come down in craft, smaller craft, and that, although they cannot live here long term, because they, again, some of this makes a lot of sense to me is that they clarify that they use genetic engineering technologies on themselves so that they can inhabit other worlds.

Now, again, NASA is actually exploring this today. So talk about the, getting to looping around this side of that. We may need to modify astronauts to send them to live on Mars and stuff because we’re not suited to other planets, right. For a lot of reasons. So, so they’re saying they do this, they use these advanced net engine technologies on themselves so that they can live on worlds where the atmosphere is and the gravity and stuff are different.

Now they haven’t had time to do this before their ship is basically destroyed as we’re come to. So they are partially changed, but not enough to live here. So they try, they’re dying from things like bacteria in the water, the levels of solar radiation, really like conventional problems that we would have going to an alien world.

So again, there’s logic to this, not these to where the aliens land and they can all breathe and they can all eat the food, which again, there’s, you know, people should question those kind of, so why would that be the case? But then they, they have a problem. And so they tend to this conclusion is that what they can do is with the remnants of their technology, is that they can modify an existing Homin to make it more like them, upgrade it, change it, and set it on a path to become like them.

And they feel that that is a, you know, a worthy plan B to their kind of colonizing this planet, if you like. So this is the, you know, not the plan, it’s the plan B. And so they describe taking some early. What we think of now is, you know, archaic commons or super archaic commons and taking them and in a lab.

Taking embryos modifying and putting these fetuses back in to be born. So modifying fetuses and implanting and creating a new kind of human. And describe that some of these pro some of these experiments don’t go, well, they say lot, their technology’s been lost in this loss of the main ship. So they are working with what they have.

So some of these initial experiments go wrong again. They’re not perfect. They’re not gods who can just do whatever they have the same problems we might have with technologies. You know, that doesn’t always work out. So again, I found that quite consistent and logical, a lot of that is quite logical consistent with reality.

Well, I, I knew that you’d have to look in a certain area of the genome in particular, and that’s in, what’s called highly conserved noncoding DNA regions.

And the reason for that is that if you are looking at genes, Those changed due to normal kind of selective pressures. Right? So over time, genes change anything obvious from engineering would almost certainly be like lost. So you have to look fors where the information stays very stable.

[01:10:39] Alex Tsakiris: You’re building on existing science and existing scientific questions and challenges that the quote unquote mainstream is trying to solve. Because you didn’t come up with these human accelerated regions, this 121 sequence. I mean, the scientists have done it for a reason that for their own reason, right?

[01:11:01] Bruce Fenton: Yeah. I mean, my, my side is they sort of stumbled on this, so I don’t think it was setting out necessarily that they stumbled on these regions where they realized that, you know, in a comparative studies that some of these segments of highly conserved code differ massively to expectations. You know? So when you contrast, I, I it’s, my favorite example is always this one with the H a R one, which is the first human accelerated region to be discovered where they had cross-referenced chickens, chimpanzees, and humans.

And what they found was that basically that in the chicken, in the chimpanzee, this short and pan Z, this short segment, and I think it’s a, it’s 118 DNA letters long, which is very short, especially in terms of you talking about genes, that would be very short. So the, in these two species, there were two letters that were different.

Now, the Chimp and the. Chimpanzee, sorry, the chicken and the chimpanzee have been evolving separately for at least 300 million years. Right? So that’s one successful stable change, you know, one letter changing for every hundred and 50 million years.

[01:12:08] Alex Tsakiris: So the reason this pops up is they go, whoa, this is interesting. Here’s kind of anomaly this sequence here. It doesn’t change at all. I mean, changes two times in 300 million years, that’s curious, what can we do with it?

[01:12:22] Bruce Fenton: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I mean we’ve, we’ve now got, you know, The whole genome has been mapped, for example, in humans.

So, I mean, we’re at a point where the knowledge now is, you know, really vast and really intricate. So they’re able to do these kinds of, you know, uh, detailed contrast between species. And so we, we understand, you know, the differences between us in a Chimp and the difference in us and, uh, you know, the gloss is point where they can, you know, you can look for segments of code and contrast them going back to when, when were we last, very alike to that creature.

So, you know, we’re able to trace it back and say that, you know, obviously this is the only difference is is this, this and this between us and, you know, than an Ava or whatever. So we can do that. So they’re doing this, they use this segment to then contrast and they can find that, okay. Yes. In a, in a chicken and chimpanzee, it’s super stable, two changes, right?

It’s amazing. It must do something very important. Otherwise it’ll be lost. It’ll change more. So clearly small changes in it must have quite drastic outcomes. Like it dies, you know, because why wouldn’t these changes keep happening and persist? Why is there only two successful ones in 300 million years, that code must be doing something quite important.

So. Then, if you look at chimps and humans, you expect it to be identical. That’s because, you know, 300 million years for chicken and Chi, but only about seven or 8 million years difference between us and chimps. That’s conventional understanding as it, as it is. So you would expect it to be none because it’s not the 150 million years required for one letter to change.

So what they found instead though, was that 18 letters had changed. So that was just wildly outside the ballpark of what should have been observed.

[01:14:07] Alex Tsakiris: You’re talking about statistics.

And you can put that in the hand of some sta statistician and they can say, boom, and then they can compare that with seven, eight, million years, 18 changes, they can crank that out in their Excel spreadsheet, not an Excel spreadsheet, but you get the point and it comes out with a statistic that everyone would point to and say, yeah, that’s, that’s the math, that’s what it is.

And the number is astronomically high. That that would be by chance, right? Is that oversimplifying it?

[01:14:37] Bruce Fenton: No, absolutely. And in fact, the, the discoverer of human accelerated region, one, um, names run on my mind, but she is herself. I think it’s professor Pollard. I mind that wrong, but she is herself, a biostatistician who helps design the programs that work out these kind of chances.

Right? So she Des you know, she worked on programs to help understand the likelihood of that happening. And so, and that came out as essentially zero. That’s what, you know, she ran see now, I think you seeing an American scientist or new science twenties magazines, basically saying basically it comes out as essentially zero.

So by any understood means of evolution, that should not be the case. So they’re saying something we don’t understand is acting upon these segments. Right. So that’s where they were at when they discovered it. And obviously there’s been a series of papers now on ha on human accelerated regions, they found many more of them.

There are at least several hundred. Now some of them are understood a bit. Some of them have no incentives know that they’re there. So in other words, what they have found is that most of the ones where they have some understanding what they do are tied up with, uh, brain changes during fetal development.

And I, and I think that’s

[01:15:50] Alex Tsakiris: massive. Okay. Is there any way to tie any of this? And I know there is, cause I’ve read and listen, your stuff to some of the dates we’re talking about.

[01:16:02] Bruce Fenton: Yeah. Cause we’ve got not only these changes, there’s some other, uh, interesting genes that occur, you know, that appear well, there’s one, that’s actually just described brain gene that’s occurred as appearing fully formed from noncoding DNA, uh, which I think gives the neuro the neocortex.

And then there’s another one. There’s a segment of a gene. So there’s also, well ASRS, there are genes and segments of genes and also the fusion of chromosome two. Right? All of these things are really important to what, if you look into it, these are the things that considered to make humans. What they are, big brains, opposable firms, you know, all this stuff that makes us different to all the other PRI.

But so what we understand cuz dating some of these change is difficult at the genetic level to be precise. But what we do know is that from the fossil record, it was already understood that around about 800,000 years ago, there is an inexplicable sudden change in the cranial capacity of humans. And so for many years before the field of genetics, there was big questions over what was happening then.

So in other words, we now know of course that those changes are expressions of genetic change. So we can see the physical shift underway that has to be tied to these genetic changes. So although you can’t pinpoint data, we know, again, some of them are data somewhere towards a million years or somewhere in the age of, you know, it’s difficult that precise, but when you can see the physical changes, we can date those in the fossil record.

So we know that this radical change in the human brain goes underway around about 800,000 years ago. Now, whilst we know is of course, is that now we understand that NALs Dennis OS and the direct access of modern humans, right? The, the, the divergence, like the formation of these different groups from the divergence, from the archaic ancestors that is happening roughly 700 to 800,000 years ago, depending on who you look at paper .

[01:18:00] Alex Tsakiris: And what did we think that date was 20 years ago or when you started this research? Because the dates shifted, right?

[01:18:08] Bruce Fenton: Yeah. It shifted a lot about 400,000 or so years ago. So this is totally different. So if you were to say 10 years ago, you know, oh, you know, I know someone modified us, they created us St.

Charles years. No, because you know, now the falls on us, we don’t really separate until 400,000 years ago, uh, in the beginnings of our species are probably 500,000 years ago. So this has shifted back just in the last few years. So we now understand actually, no there’s evidence from proteins, from genes, from, you know, and from the FOS record from teeth as well.

They’re looking at where they’ve, they’ve now got enough evidence to say, well, based on everything that we now have, we can see that this, this split from these archaic towards these large brain humans. So it includes obviously nano force Denniss and us that that is occurring. Roughly seven to 800,000 years ago.

And the dating on the chromosome two fusion, which has another key change that has been dated by at least one British biologist as being around about seven 50 or so thousand years ago, because you can see it happens at the beginning of this split between Les and Dennis over. They all have it as well.

That that is happening at the beginning of that split. So we know that there’s, these things are occurring and we can see the changes happening physically here. So that’s the interesting addition that, you know, rather than just saying it’s someone like a million years, according to genetics, we can say, well, let’s look at the skulls, let’s see what’s going on.

And we can see this radical shift. Um, the clinical capacity just accelerates massively beyond body size changes where in the past you could sort of track body size increase with skull capacity increase. So if you look around thousand on the chart and there are charts, people can look at this, there’s a sudden acceleration in this grain of capacity.

So again, you can mesh physical with genetics, which is really, I think, crucial.

[01:19:51] Alex Tsakiris: Okay. So I, I hope we’ve kind of made the case that you’ve approached this from a scientific perspective. And while, as you said at the beginning, you know, you can’t go to toe to toe with someone who has multiple PhDs and fellowships on each one of these topics.

But as anyone who’s listening, this can tell, you can go toe to toe with them up to a point. And if you were totally full of crap, you would be shot down and you’re not being shot down. And as a matter of fact, your ideas are building upon the very best science we have of the time.


So if we accept that as kind of the theory that we have to go to, what are some of the most striking implications for you? Big picture wise? Who are we? Why are we here? What are UFOs? What do they want? How long have they been here? What are they doing? And what’s good, et versus bad, et . Now we can ask those questions at a different level. What do you think. Yeah.

[01:20:57] Bruce Fenton: Yeah, absolutely. Because I mean, there’s some things you can’t answer. Like if we can establish, say that, you know, some intelligence was here with a technology 788,000 years ago, and that may well be, you know, intertwined with our evolution even directly, or just by the practice there.

It’s gonna have some. Relevance to our evolution, right. That I don’t, I can’t say whether it came. I can’t be certain on whether it came from our space, uh, you know, from alpha intu or the polices, which I know I suggest, but, you know, I, I can’t confirm that. I can’t confirm whether it wasn’t some ancient marsh in civilization or, you know, was dinosaurs.

But what we can say is that some other intelligence alien to us was present. So then where are they now? So it opens that big question. Are they still lurking? And if so, what are they doing? Why aren’t they making contact what’s their agenda? Or have they gone in which case that’s will they come back?

What would they do if they did come back or have they gone extinct? If so, why is that our destiny? I think it opens those questions and people have to start thinking, well, if they were there, then where are they now? What are they doing? What’s coming for us. And those are definitely massive questions that instantly happen.

And then of course, if we’ve been modified, you have to then start saying, well, why, what is this longer term agenda? Have we been further modified? Will we be again, modified? Right? So the, these are massive, massive burning questions around this. Once you establish this, some reality to

[01:22:23] Alex Tsakiris: this, see, and I, I I’m with you on all that.

I take somewhat of a different take in terms of the burden of proof thing, because I think you’ve established UFO reality spaceship, you know? So again, burden of proof for someone to say that silica object that’s orbiting is not a spaceship. To me again, that’s, it’s a spaceship. And by extension, if there’s spaceships 780,000 years ago with advanced technology, then all bets are off.

And when people wanna start telling me about, you know, Roswell and all the rest, I’m like, great, but we have to fit it now into this larger timeframe. And we can talk about all the other stuff, but we can’t talk about, it’s just advanced technology. It’s like really it’s just earth based, advanced technology.

Again, the burden of proof would be on you. But in doing that, you would have to incorporate in Bruce’s object from 700 to 80,000 years ago. Uh, the aliens are good. And they’re environmentalists and they’re trying to protect the planet. Well, again, now you’re gonna have to fit that in with a bombardment five years after this occurs, where they risk blowing up the planet in order to get the guys, they don’t like out of their underground villages, you know, mm-hmm, , that doesn’t sound like everyone in the galactic Federation is on the same page in terms of how we deal with conflict.

So do you get what I’m saying? What do you think about that?

[01:24:01] Bruce Fenton: Yeah, absolutely. There’s you know, it, it, it should make us rethink the whole, you know, UFO alien contact topic entirely. I mean, I, I, it ly makes me think of, for example, you know, Jack ballet, you know, basically probably familiar with Jack ballet, but his idea that what we are seeing in the UFO phenomena and the interrelated aspects that connect to it.

So everything from alien abductions to strange encounters and, you know, seemingly missed experiences, uh, what he has referred to as kind of an evolutionary control grid. Now, if there is an intelligence interested in our evolution, and then you take the, the famous, obviously Clark quote of, you know, who obviously Clark said, you know, any, uh, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable for magic.

A lot of these things happening to people are magical seeming, right? Like say the abduction phenomena, it’s magical seeming because there’s a lot of cases where you can say they definitely were not taken anywhere, physically cuz people were there and stuff. Right. But they’ve had experiences as though they want alien ships having, you know, eggs taken and things that don’t seem to be happening in consensus reality in physical terms, but are happening for them.

And they’ve got PTSD and every, these things are happening to them in some way, magical things. Now, if we think of a technology or a race that is so incomprehensible to us, that what it does is magical, then you, you have to reevaluate the whole thing and say, yeah, is this an evolution control grid? Which involves not only physical technologies, maybe probes that watch and interact, but magical stuff.

Where, you know, things we can’t comprehend that deal with interdimensional knowledge, you know, maybe some of it’s technological, maybe some of it’s their consciousness is able to hack into us in telepathic ways and project experiences into our brains. I mean, you, you have to start opening a door into what sounds like crazy scifi, but any species that nearly a million years ago could fly around in giant silica cross.

Why is he doing now?

[01:25:51] Alex Tsakiris: Exactly. And there’s a completely different way to take that as well. And that’s the importance of, like we said, with the chia technology associated with it. And you always come back to that. I think the technology angle on this is super interesting. I think the silica ship AI intelligent ship is interesting.

I think the genetic engineering and the failed genetic engineering is interesting because it suggests as does the silica chip that maybe the technology gap, isn’t what we might imagine. Maybe it starts sounding a lot closer to the kind of stuff we’re familiar with. Oh yeah. We made the program, but the AI screwed up because it is just a program and we unplugged it and it, it didn’t do what it was supposed to do, genetically.

exactly, you know, oh, we genetically modified these, , fetuses, but we didn’t really know how to do it cuz we didn’t have the, you know, the right equipment. That’s again, sounding very human. And this is now on the table. Cuz the other thing you said was Jacque Blake love Jacque white awesome, huge contributor, uh, to this understanding of the phenomenon in, in general.

But. A lot of people take that and go the Uber consciousness thing. Right? So there’s, there’s, it’s all consciousness, you know, there’s none of this, well, this flies in the face of that, right? Yeah. The tech type that you hold in your hand is in this here now consensus reality. It is materialistic science that we’ve used to analyze that, to date that, to tell us what the elements are and how they’re formed.

That’s very third dimension, materialistic science too. So again, that’s why I think this work is so important because it kind of drives a stake in the ground. It says, Hey, don’t go too far with that. You wanna go fairies and Bigfoot, right. Mm-hmm but it does kind of come back to spaceships and lasers from space too.

You know, what do you

[01:27:50] Bruce Fenton: think about that? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I, I, I tend to think of, to my knowledge, you know, and having looked at a lot of strange stuff for a very long time that this is the only line of research where we can really do say, stick that stigma around and say, well, this is a physical event involving an alien intelligence.

It’s only alien to us. Am I where it came from alien to humans that could do amazing technological things. Now with the modern phenomena, the contact EUC F like it’s really fuzzy. Like which parts of that are psychical consciousness, visionary, , or, or are physical. It’s really hazy, really hard to see that.

And I, I tend to take a step back and say, I really don’t know which parts of that are definitely physical. So where we had an article, a lot about nuts and bolts versus woooo consciousness, nobody really knows where that line is in that modern phenomena, but I can say, well, okay, that to one side, let’s at least establish that some of this is physical and that that’s what this does actually there, as you say, there is some physicality definitely to this, and that would infer probably some physicality that continues to a present somewhere amongst that strangeness, that we can’t tie down the John Key kind of, you know, conclusions that it’s all, you know, just was it para physical.

The stuff that comes into reality seems physical can mailed away that that seems to be going on too. But we can infer that if they are physical enough to leave real debris, that you can pick up that there is a physical element to at least some of these non-human intelligences that seem to be interacting with us.

Maybe there’s others that are just pure energy. And you know, you go into all that, but we can’t establish that yet. So let’s start with what we can establish.

[01:29:33] Alex Tsakiris: Yeah. And that, and that, of course, that brings up the really level three kind of discussion about consciousness, extended consciousness, uh, good and evil in the extended consciousness, whether there is a moral imperative and we could even talk about good and evil.

, , the, the question I always boil it down to is what does ETS NDE look like? Right? Hmm. There’s a near death experience. There’s a reality to that. Consciousness from a physical standpoint should have stopped. Your brain has stopped. Your heart has stopped. . And yet we know that consciousness is continuing, where is that consciousness going? And then there seems to be this other dimension that it’s going into what’s happening for et. And you know, this is a, a further inference than I think you would probably go or that a lot of people would go with your research.

But what I would think would be one of the, the ways I would read it is that ETS NDE isn’t maybe that much different from our NDE. Cause it starts looking like a lot of the same stuff. And particularly the, you know, we didn’t even talk about the bombardment thing, but particularly that. damnit, I don’t care.

Blast them out of the sky. Hey, they blasted us out of the sky. Let’s come back and attack them. I don’t care if we blow up that blow up the planet, that doesn’t sound like transcendent consciousness. , to me, that doesn’t sound like God, to me, that sounds like, you know, in God I’m putting just in terms of how we would understand that unity consciousness, that we’re all somehow connected kind of thing.


[01:31:11] Bruce Fenton: yeah. I think it’s certainly face that no matter whether there may be intelligences that are pure, you know, love and light and others, that there are also are others out there that are yeah. More akin to us than we might. So it doesn’t preclude that there aren’t like angelic perfect beings and, you know, living light forms, you know, all of that can also be true, but that they are, you know, maybe surprisingly to us, but there are other beings that are recognizable to us in terms of, we can imagine they probably went through a similar evolutionary path to us because some of their behaviors and their choices are recognizable to us.

And I think that again, gives us a sense of perhaps a better sense of not being alone than if we did find beings that were so radically different. We’re like, well, what do we even make of them? You know, whereas we can say, well, at least some of them, there’s some hope we might have a connection where we could understand each other because they seem to do things a bit like us and they’re not perfect.

They’re not, you know, infallible gods who, you know, never make a mistake or, you know, can never, you know, have a technology go wrong. That they, they actually are recognized being that way too. And I think, yeah, that’s really important. Cause there probably are beings that we just, we wouldn’t know where to start with their consciousness, you know, and their thinking and would be like talking to a brick, you know, in terms of our chances of ever connecting with them.

Right. Because it’s so different. The consciousness types are so different that we would have no real hope. We could only recognize maybe that there’s other life, but the other life is shut off from us because it’s so strange. So I, I think this gives us a hopeful feeling as well that we, maybe we can really connect with other intelligence out there.

Cause there’s a little bit of us there in them as well, as well as a bit of them in us with the genetics.

[01:32:49] Alex Tsakiris: Bruce finally, what do you think about the current state of this, uh, conversation? It’s at a totally different point than we’ve ever seen in our lifetime. It’s you know, what do you think about Lou Elizondo?

You know, disclosure comes through an intelligence officer, ah, from the Pentagon, ah, what a surprise . Anyone buys that story. What do you think about disclosure? We do seem to be going through it, no matter what you think about it,

[01:33:19] Bruce Fenton: we certainly going through yes. Some kind of narrative shift now, is it so, I mean disclosed or is it a story being woven for us?

In which case it wouldn’t really be a disclosure because again, disclosure infers that this is that we are being shown factual, hidden things. Right now, I think’s gonna be very difficult for us to ever confirm that we are being shown factual, hidden things, versus being given a story that is preferred by certain people.

Now, whether that’s individuals or the intelligence community or the government, you know, how do we really know? Now? The only thing you can really establish that is if someone was to really say, I know, wheel out a craft, an aliens, we could at least get to point and say, well, where there’s definitely a hidden, you know, there’s an alien craft.

They had one, that’s a disclosure. But if what we get is just information. I think that’s really problematic because we have no way to independently validate that this isn’t just a story being woven for us. And there’s, um, a really interesting article by a guy called Alexander went, and I dunno if you know him, but he writes about how really the control system can never reveal aliens to us because it’s a direct threat to them because you’re now putting a higher order above the top of the pyramid, you know, cuz instead of people looking to the apex as the political elite, everyone’s gonna ask, but what do their level, you know, these ation type free type beings think who really are in control of our solar system, who cares what the president of America says, he’s irrelevant now, right?

That that’s gonna be a big problem for a system that is built on that control system. You know,

[01:34:57] Alex Tsakiris: Yeah, I, I, I, Dr. Alexander went, has been on the show, , at least once, but, , the counter to that is what we’ve lived through with the recent elections. And with the great reset is that I think all that stuff is kind of irrelevant or being managed on a whole different level that we don’t totally appreciate.

And I also think, the disclosure and particularly the New York times disclosure, and again, I interviewed both Leslie Kane and, Ralph Blumenthal from the New York times who have the byline on that story.

Number one, it seemed like Teddy, anyone is paying attention, a political SIOP from the beginning. Again, this Lou Elizondo character, you know, why is an intelligence officer? The one leaking. That would be the first question, but number two, it didn’t do what it was supposed to do.

So they’re they’re constantly shaping the, the social narrative and the mind control experiment, but that doesn’t mean that they’re in control of it. My best read of it is they didn’t know that it would go the way that it has in their attempt to disclose.

So they’re constantly tweaking it. . And isn’t that our history of what we’ve seen in terms of propaganda, misinformation. I mean, it’s always , a moving target. It’s an evolving, well, let’s see what that does. And then it’s a chess game. It’s like, okay, well from that position, they did this.

So now I’ll do that.

[01:36:25] Bruce Fenton: Mm-hmm , mm-hmm yeah. I mean, I think particularly, you know, say Steven Greentree and the New York post, who’s done some really good investigative research into this show that yeah, a lot of this stuff been said has changed. It’s an evolving narrative when you are being told an absolute revelation of truth expands, it doesn’t change.

Right. And what we are seeing is changing, shifting sounds in the narrative. So that is, should be a red flag to people. And of course, I’d say the majority of. Old hands in. Euphology have tended towards skepticism of this, that they see a problem, cuz they still remember the days where this is a lot of disin info and a lot of military control going into the UFO world.

Whereas many of the people who’ve come in in 2017 onwards who become diehard, uh, UFO, activists, they instance who are activists for disclosure. And it’s all about the government and the military. And we need to let these people who know all the stuff, know what they’re doing. Take over the narrative, you know, really are just so green.

So green. It, it it’s, it’s unfortunate that they seem to have got the big traction on this and the other people who do know better. We’ve spent decades in this, uh, being sidelined because of course the media, um, the intelligence chief are loving these people, loving them because they’re also enabling this idea that the government is giving the people what they want.

So first you need the people to say, we want this. So you engineer group of people who then call on the government to do it. And it looks like you’re responding to the people instead of just bringing out the story, you’re gonna bring out in the first place that nobody would’ve believed without a call for it from ground level.

So it’s, it’s amazing really to sort of see it working. So you know exactly how you’d expect them to want it to work and that’s what’s happening. So that should again be another big red flag. And that certainly what a few hundred or a few thousand activists calling on senators makes changes. How many people asked not to have jabs or not to have digital passports and we’re totally railroaded millions of people, but we are supposed to believe a few thousand UFO activists have managed to get Congress to do all this stuff.

I’m sorry, I’m not buying you.

[01:38:28] Alex Tsakiris: Richard Doty, strawberry ice cream. Should I tell anyone to just Google Richard Doty, strawberry ice cream, go from there, Bruce. It’s been just fantastic. Uh, then I, I loved it. I love talking about this stuff with you. You are the best, the best or the best, this latest book. Exogenesis hybrid humans, a scientific history of extraterrestrial genetic manipulation with your wife, Danny, the incomparable, Danny. There’s also the forgotten Exodus, the into Africa theory of human evolution hybrid humans, scientific evidence of our 800,000 year old alien legacy.

And then you can go watch 780,000 are alien origin story. What’s what’s next? What are you working on? What do we, should we expect to see from you?

[01:39:26] Bruce Fenton: Yeah, I mean, I should, within the next. Touch wood within the next few days, get the fine letter done on the tech type paper.

And obviously arguing that this is an object, but also, um, that it’s most likely a techno signature. We should make it the first ever alien techno signature. Um, I gonna get that onto pre-print servers. So there’ll be accessible to everybody, you know, to the public, um, to any scientists or journalists that might be interested most likely to be, you know, alternative media.

I imagine probably not mainstream media, but anyone that is interested in that it’d be available. And I think it’s important. Those people can check and see that, you know, I’ve, I’m providing all the sources for this. And as I say, all, all from academics and NASA and all these people who, you know, have a more trusted authority in these areas, you know, for most people.

Um, so that will be up. I hope, you know, very imminently. So I hope people watch that space and with a bit of luck, at least the alternative or, you know, independent media, um, may get excited about that. Let’s hope so. Um, and we won’t respect Fox and CNN props to jump right onto it. But, you know, if some of these bigger, you know, independent platforms cover it, that’d be great.

I’d be quite very, very happy with that. And if some scientists engage with it and start responding and saying like, what’s wrong with it, if you don’t agree, explain it. Also explain why it’s took 200 years to resolve this tech type topic. Uh, unless you’ve got something radically wrong. That’s a long time, 200.

They’ve had the ball for 200 years before anyone’s mentioned aliens.

[01:40:56] Alex Tsakiris: Great. Well, Bruce, as always fantastic stuff. Thanks so much for doing this. Take care.

[01:41:03] Bruce Fenton: No worries. Pleasure. Thanks. Thanks so much.

thanks again to Bruce Fenton for joining me today on skeptical. The one question I’d have to tee up from this interview is do you think Bruce has tightened up his game? Out of course, presupposes, you knew his game before, which you should. If you’re listening to this show,

But do you think he’s moved as closer to really nailing down? Some of these theories he has. Let me know your thoughts.

Love to hear from you as always. We are, whether we’d like it or not in this together. So let’s talk. Much more to come. Until next time, take care. And bye for now.



Until next time. Take care. And bye for now.


  • More From Skeptiko

  • [/box]